Science vs Skepticism

[Dr B]

Believe it or not I do not describe myself as a skeptic :D. Why? well, first and foremost I am a scientist. The method I have learned and the thinking tools I try to learn ( ) keep me focused on claims, evidence, reason, logic and conclusion. These are also the tools of a skeptic.

On the UKS website it says "promoting the benefits of skepticism". I am sure we all know the benefits of thinking about things in a more considered and objective manner. But are these not the benefits of science as well? So why do we need and use the terms 'skeptic' instead of 'the scientific method'?

Is it because you can be a scientist without being a skeptic and you can be a skeptic without being a scientist (a kind of life-choice). ???

One possible reason could be that some scientists are poor at what they do - i.e., gullible. However, the point at which they become rather woo is the point at which they are no longer doing science!

Another point is - you cannot apply skepticism to the extreme - as to accept no position / evidence is no better than being a die-hard believer. Indeed, as Shermer and others point out, in the extreme one becomes skeptical of skepticism.

We know what skepticism is - but how does it sit with science and the scientific method? Is there any friction?

Should the banner on the website say something like 'promoting the benefits of science and reason' or 'promoting the benefits of science and skepticism' or something like that?????

[median]

Should the banner on the website say something like 'promoting the benefits of science and reason' or 'promoting the benefits of science and skepticism' or something like that??

An admirable suggestion Dr B.
In my experience the term 'skeptic' carries such negative connotations that people either 'close shop' or react aggressively.
Furthermore there are skeptic movements that do not appear to debate in a rational manner.

Personally I do not think of the terms skeptic and scientist to be functionally equivalent.

UK Skeptics being the exception, of course

[Admin]

I think many people think of science and skepticism synonymously. I see them as completely separate however.

Science is about generating new ideas, testing them, creating theories etc. and there doesn’t need to be limits set to the scientist’s imagination in doing this. As long as skeptical scrutiny is used to weed out the ideas that don’t work science will always advance.

I see skepticism mainly as a way of scrutinising claims. Claims of any kind. They don’t have to be scientific. I see it as a method of thinking used to hone in on the truth (or as close as is possible) by filtering out the false claims.

The ‘promoting the benefits of skepticism’ subtitle was intended to be aimed at using skepticism in our everyday lives.

Skeptics are often drawn towards pseudoscience and the paranormal but I don’t think we should restrict ourselves just to those areas. In fact, apart from alternative medicine, those areas have little impact on people’s lives by and large.

I originally wanted to look at how to apply skepticism to our everyday lives for use in making decisions (financial etc.) or for use in business (just how much do businesses waste on pointless management consultants, for example?). Is there any benefit to buying ‘organic’ food, for example, or are the benefits an illusion? Is there a downside? More land needs to be used, more energy expended in farming the crops (global warming?), animals are ‘treated’ with homeopathy rather than real medicine so they don’t lose their market value (animal abuse?), etc.

Anyway, when I come down to Birmingham in October these are some of the ideas we need to thrash out so we can decide on exactly where we’re heading in 2007 and beyond.

If there’s a better term than ‘Skeptic’ that we could use I’d be all for it. It does have negative connotations and as I’ve said before people don’t know the difference between being ‘sceptical’ and being ‘a Skeptic’ so we are always battling against the misconception.

[Dr B]

I think many people think of science and skepticism synonymously. I see them as completely separate however.

Science is about generating new ideas, testing them, creating theories etc. and there doesn’t need to be limits set to the scientist’s imagination in doing this. As long as skeptical scrutiny is used to weed out the ideas that don’t work science will always advance.

I see skepticism mainly as a way of scrutinising claims. Claims of any kind. They don’t have to be scientific. I see it as a method of thinking used to hone in on the truth (or as close as is possible) by filtering out the false claims.

I dont see as much clear blue water between science and true skepticism as you John. I cannot think of an idea that is unscientific that you should not be skeptical of :D

However, some scientists are clearly, not skeptical enough. It is arguable to what extent their actions can be classed as scientific. I prefer to think of it as critical thinking, rational thinking.

Skeptics are often drawn towards pseudoscience and the paranormal but I don’t think we should restrict ourselves just to those areas. In fact, apart from alternative medicine, those areas have little impact on people’s lives by and large.

I totally agree that skepticism can be applied to a broad scope, so can critical thinking and so can science. These too are methods and tools (just playing devil's advocate of course )

I originally wanted to look at how to apply skepticism to our everyday lives for use in making decisions (financial etc.) or for use in business (just how much do businesses waste on pointless management consultants, for example?). Is there any benefit to buying ‘organic’ food, for example, or are the benefits an illusion? Is there a downside? More land needs to be used, more energy expended in farming the crops (global warming?), animals are ‘treated’ with homeopathy rather than real medicine so they don’t lose their market value (animal abuse?), etc.

A truly admirable aim and you are a credit to us all for doing it My comments are really about the perception, from others, about skepticism. There are two ways to look at it. You can educate the public about what true skepticism is (which is the application of critical thinking to all walks of life), or you can use a term they may be more familiar with and not as negatively biased towards. Maybe we should pay teek loads of cash to come up with some marketing insight 8)

If there’s a better term than ‘Skeptic’ that we could use I’d be all for it. It does have negative connotations and as I’ve said before people don’t know the difference between being ‘sceptical’ and being ‘a Skeptic’ so we are always battling against the misconception.

Indeed we are - which might be half the problem. As I said, in my own personal case, i do not see myself as a skeptic. Science has taught me a great deal and it is the methods of science and critical thinking that seem sufficient for most instances. Note - i am in no way saying you have to be a scientist ( :D) god no....what I am saying is if anyone read up on the principles of science etc, and adopted them, they would probably be 95% on the way to being a skeptic.

I have always liked the term - constructional doubt

[chillzero]

Indeed we are - which might be half the problem. As I said, in my own personal case, i do not see myself as a skeptic. Science has taught me a great deal and it is the methods of science and critical thinking that seem sufficient for most instances. Note - i am in no way saying you have to be a scientist ( :D) god no....what I am saying is if anyone read up on the principles of science etc, and adopted them, they would probably be 95% on the way to being a skeptic.

I have always liked the term - constructional doubt

I am a skeptic.

There is no way on this earth I will ever be described as a scientist. I am not scientifically trained. I have not read up on the principles of science. I hate big words and long sentences, and confusing labels for things that could easily be explained in simpler terms.

Why should I have to understand anything about science, to be a skeptic? Skepticism (to me) is about how you approach things in life. It's your natural response to be curious about everything you see, hear, or read and wonder if you can accept what is being presented to you. I see science as a subset of the things you approach in a skeptical manner. I hate to see the two banded together because 'science' and 'scientist' are very clinical terms with a certain image. Skepticism doesn't have to be that way. Personally, I am a bit hippy-dippy. Lab coats? nah.

It's not a chicken and egg thing - I read your post as saying that scientific approach comes before skepticism. I disagree. I think skepticism can be completely separate from scientific knowledge, training or ability. Science without a skeptical approach, however, is a whole 'nother matter. I don't understand how a scientist can function without skepticism.

[Mojo]

I am a skeptic.

There is no way on this earth I will ever be described as a scientist. I am not scientifically trained. I have not read up on the principles of science. I hate big words and long sentences, and confusing labels for things that could easily be explained in simpler terms.

Sure. You can be a skeptic (however you spell it) without being a scientist. Skepticism is just a particular frame of mind which involves examining the evidence for propositions in order to decide whether they're true.

But you can't be a scientist without applying skepticism to the ideas you're studying.

[Cuddles]

But you can't be a scientist without applying skepticism to the ideas you're studying.

(Bolding mine)

I would say a scientist has to be sceptical about ideas they study, but it is perfectly possible for them to be as un-scientific and sceptical about everythin else. I think this is rather silly, but it seems a lot of scientists do behave this way. Science and skepticism should go together, but there is no guarantee that they atually will. Personally I'd describe myself as both, and atheist to boot. Man am I ever going to hell if I turn out to be wrong. :P

[Admin]

Skepticism is a crucial part of science but skepticism is not science.

I've been trying to write an article (and factsheet) named "what is skepticism?" and it's probably the hardest thing I've written. In fact I still haven't finished it. To get it right, I've had to thoroughly look at what skepticism is and how it applies to everyday living (not just science).

Unlike science, skepticism is not about generating new ideas, generating hypotheses, designing tests and performing them etc., it's simply the critical appraisal of the results of such tests. It's about the scrutiny of claims.

However, the power of skepticism shouldn't be underplayed. Without it, without weeding out the untenable, we would not advance our knowledge. Spirituality, pseudoscience, etc., as well as science, generate new ideas and make claims of truth but it's only science that applies skepticism to its method and that, I believe, is the reason why sciences advance knowledge whereas other disciplines do not.

Skepticism is about trying to prove things wrong (and that's probably where a lot of the negative connotations arise) and if claims stand up to this scrutiny we accept them as true (or provisionally so).

Technically speaking, any claim made is a scientific one as long as it is falsifiable. So it's actually impossible to separate claims into scientific/non-scientific terms as strictly speaking non-scientific claims is an oxymoron: they are not actually real claims.

I make the (arbitrary) distinction between scientific claims and everyday claims solely on how people perceive them. "We can save you 30% on your household insurance" would not be seen by most people as a scientific claim - but technically it is.

The main point here though, is that people can use skepticism (critical scrutiny of claims) without having a science background. Of course things can always be used on different levels, but I think that people adopting even the basics of skepticism, doubt and inquiry, into their thinking will benefit. Skepticism helps us make smart decisions.

I believe it would benefit us greatly if we used skepticism in our everyday lives in the way that scientists use it in theirs.

I'm happy to use the label of 'Skeptic' although I too would not describe myself solely as 'a Skeptic'. I love science and I love the acquisition of knowledge - neither a prerequisite to being a skeptic (although they certainly help).

Anyway, I hope that makes some sense as it came straight off the top of my head.

[Dr B]

Hiya Chilli

I think you have managed to misunderstand my comments in just about every way. Anyway, I will try to clarify.

I am a skeptic.

There is no way on this earth I will ever be described as a scientist. I am not scientifically trained. I have not read up on the principles of science. I hate big words and long sentences, and confusing labels for things that could easily be explained in simpler terms.

Guess what, science hates big long words as well! What you talk of sounds nothing like the science i know. Keep it as simple as it needs to be is the way and is strongly encouraged. This is just my experience of course, but i certainly do not recognise your conception of science.

Why should I have to understand anything about science, to be a skeptic?

Depends on what you want to understand - if it requires a sound understand of some principles i see it as important - otherwise you are just touting skeptical sound bites without really knowing why. However, i totally agree that for many areas of life - you do not need an understanding of science - but who said you did? Not me. 8) As I said above - depends on what you want to understand.

Skepticism (to me) is about how you approach things in life. It's your natural response to be curious about everything you see, hear, or read and wonder if you can accept what is being presented to you.

So is science and critical thinking.

It's not a chicken and egg thing - I read your post as saying that scientific approach comes before skepticism

Then you read it wrong - sorry for not being clearer. In fact i was not saying anything remotely like it. I am asking about the overlap and the clear blue water between - if indeed there is any. I have said nothing at all about one coming before the other

[tkingdoll]

A friend of mine recently said this:

The difference between skepticism and science is that skepticism concentrates on what isn't there, while science concentrates on what is there.

I agree, and it changed my thinking about a lot of things as a result. He also pointed out that the best way to engage (educate) the general public is to focus on what is there, and build on that, and suggested that that is why skepticism has a bad rep.

Again, I agree. I commented a little on this in another thread today but am short of time, dammit!

However, I'm convinced that that is the key to understanding the difference between science and skepticism.

I am about to embark on a research project that examines this in more detail. If anyone wants to be involved, please PM me, I could do with a few volunteers for admin! Might involve trawling through data though...

[markb777]

yes researchers have discovered why the ice caps were melting...it was once thought that increasing CO2 levels were the cause by global warming...but this photo has been taken proving without a doubt that polar bears having too many BBQs was the real reason the ice caps were melting...